No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

This is charming, the pink makes we think of France, but could it be elsewhere? And roughly when do you think? The shape of the bowl is quite neat , but the stem and foot have been put on not exactly roughly, but not precisely either. The bowl is really very thickly made, and the glass quite heavy.

The pink is cased in clear, and the casing has a fair few bubbles in it, and is showing a couple of tool marks just above the bulb at the bottom of the bowl, rim shows a slight bulge inwards, the baluster stem is milky white, and the conical foot has been separately applied and is a milky opalescent. White stem projects into the cone of the foot as a small dome. My blacklight isn't working at the moment, so I don't know if it fluoresces or not.

Just different that's all. To be judged by different standards. More emphasis on artistic expression, less on technical perfection. Making stems is highly specialised. Most Studio goblets lack finesse.Difficult to ID even with a legible signature - impossible without any mark.Sorry

Logged

Pete

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com

Oh don't be sorry! I dashed off the reply too quickly, what I meant was that different terms can mean different things to different folks, and I wondered if what you meant by Studio glass was different to my understanding of the term. It was your description as lacking in finesse that threw me.

I have no idea of who or where this came from, but you not knowing either is no problem! It is sitting near the computer in case a sudden flash of inspiration might hit me, but it hasn't so far ...

Looks very slightly wonky in the pic ...but maybe the angle of photo ?Also the stem is a little fatter than normal but if this is a studio piece then its actually very good. Making stems is highly specialised. Most modern studio goblets are very amateurish in technical terms.

It could Murano (which is effectively studio production). However, if by a maestro you would expect better so maybe a trainee. I have a stem by (Murano trained maestro) Franco Toffolo and it is a joy to hold and to behold.

Logged

Pete

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com

Looks very slightly wonky in the pic ...but maybe the angle of photo ?

yes, that's my wonky tripod...

Quote

Also the stem is a little fatter than normal but if this is a studio piece then its actually very good. Making stems is highly specialised. Most modern studio goblets are very amateurish in technical terms.

It's really quite a chunky piece all round. the glass is really thick to the bottom of the bowl, The approx diameter of the outside is around 2.5 ins, the inside is only 1 inch.

Quote

It could Murano (which is effectively studio production). However, if by a maestro you would expect better so maybe a trainee. I have a stem by (Murano trained maestro) Franco Toffolo and it is a joy to hold and to behold.

No I don't think it is a maestro's work. It really isn't anywhere near fine enough for that. The way that the opalescent foot has been applied to the milk glass stem is not finely finished, no maestro would have allowed it out like that.